Possession of stolen railway property under Section 3(a) of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act can be proved even if the accused is not in actual possession at the time of recovery, provided that it can be established that they were in possession of the property at any point of time.

( 1 ) THESE two cases arose thus.

( 2 ) ON 24-4-91 at about 1-50 hours on Ramji Prasad ASI/rpf/lcd Post. Ramji Prasad succeeded in arresting only Dhanbahadur Gurung with those properties while two of his associates namely Munna Bahadur and Mohan Kumar Gurung managed to flee away. No satisfactory reply could be offered by Dhanbahadur to account for the possession of the said railway properties which were seized. On interrogation, Dhanbahadur Gurung made a revelation that he used to sell the stolen railway property to the shops-cum-godowns of one Rajaram of Lalababu Shire Road, Belur and one Arun of Tarachand Ganguly Street, Bally. On the basis of a complaint lodged by the ASI Ramji Prasad with LCD/rpf/post, case No. 1 (4) 1991 dated 24-4-91 was registered under Section 3 (a) of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 at RPF Post LCD. In this connexion, two search warrants in respect of the above two shops cum godowns and two warrants of arrest against the two associates of Dhanbahadur Gurung namely Munabahadur and Mohan Kumar Gurung were obtained from the Court of SDJM, Howrah and on 3-5-91, on the strength of one of the search warrants, the shop cum godown of the said Rajaram at 11, Lalababu Shire Road, Belur was searched and the search led to the recovery of some railway properties which were seized. On Chhotelal Shaw, son of Rajaram, was present in the said shop at the time of search and seizure and was arrested. The trade licence (No. 524 dated 20-12-90) issued by the Municipality in respect of the said shop cum godown stood in favour of not only Rajaram but also one Mangru and one Munilal Shaw. Several attempts were made to execute the search warrant in respect of the shop cum godown of Arun but it was found to be closed with lock and key. Attempts were also made to execute the warrants of arrest against Munna Bahadur and Mohan Kumar Gurung but to no effect. They are absconders along with Mangru Shaw and Munilal Shaw. During inquiry all the seized properties were examined by an expert and the examination revealed that they were railway proeprties which were serviceable and were neither auctionable nor available in the open market. From the evidence collected during inquiry a prima facie charge has been well-established against all the seven accused persons namley Dhanbahadur Gurung, Rajaram Shaw, Chhotelal Shaw, Mongru Shaw, Munilal Shaw, Mohan Kumar Gurung and Munna Bahadur.

( 3 ) ON the aforesaid allegations, one S. N. Dwibedi, SI/rpf/lcd submitted report before the ld. SDJM, Howrah, who took cognizance on that report. On 8-5-91, the inquiry officer submitted a prayer for issuance of warrant of arrest against the accused Rajaram Shaw. The ld. SDJM by his order dated 8-5-91 allowed that prayer directing issuance of warrant of arest against Rajaram Shaw and Rajaram Shaw came up with the Criminal Revision No. 1123 of 1991 under Sections 401/482 Cr. P. C. challenging the order of issuance of warrant of arrest and praying for quashing of the said order dated 8-5-91. The ld. magistrate issued summons against Munnilal Shaw and Mhungro Shaw and even though the service return of the summons was not received by the Court, by order No. 46 dated 1-8-94 the ld. Magistrate in seisin of the case issued the warrant of arrest against them and these two accused persons filed the subsequent Criminal Revision Case No. 1975 of 1994 on 27-9-94 praying for quashing of the proceeding as against them.

( 4 ) MR. Sudipto Moitro, the ld. Counsel appearing for the petitioners in both the cases (Criminal Revision 1123 of 1991 and Criminal Revision 1975 of 1994) contended that the complaint on the basis of which the impugned proceeding being Liluah LCD Post Case No. 1 (4) 1991 dated 24-4-91 under Section 3 (a) of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act was registered, does not disclose any offence punishable under Section 3 (a) of the Act against any of the petitioners and on that ground itself the procee